{Krimel]
But that's just part of the trouble with Wilber...
[Krimel]
You said it!
There is this: holons. This is a great metaphor and a potentially useful
tool for thinking. Wilber drives it into the dirt, claiming that, it's all
holons. Everything is a holon. Yeah, well kinda, maybe... Not really.
Everything is whole made of parts, every part is made of wholes. This is not
nearly as profound as Wilber makes it sound. It is really just set theory
simplified and certainly not a matter of metaphysics.
Which holons does he mean? As soon as you choose to look at "this" holon an
entire holorchy forms around it. By selecting one thing to focus on
everything around it comes into focus in virtue of each other thing's
relationship to the first thing. How you carve things up depends entirely on
what you are carving. A water molecule could be part of the holarchy of a
lake or the holarchy of a breath or the holarchy of an icecube depending on
how you view it or what state it's in. In short the idea as Wilber presents
it is so vague as to mean anything.
But he presses on with the notion of depth and span, which is kind of nice.
If we buy his "everything's a holarchy" line for a minute, he tells us that
as we go up the holarchy, depth (height?) increases as span decreases. Thus
to use his example; there are more oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the universe
than water molecules since water molecules are made of oxygen and hydrogen
atoms.
And so he says. "Each successive level of evolution produces GREATER depth
and LESS span." He adds, "The greater the depth of a holon, the greater its
degree of consciousness. The spectrum of evolution is a spectrum of
consciousness. And one can perhaps begin to see that a spiritual dimension
is built into the very fabric, the very depth, of the Kosmos."
Not exactly. Having said this, he still insists that mystical consciousness
is "higher" despite the fact the spiritual consciousness has been active far
longer that rational consciousness. Rational consciousness has grown out of
and transcended spiritual consciousness relatively recently. Spiritual
consciousness does not grow out of rational thought.
This illustrates the confusion quite well:
"On the other hand, the greater the depth, or the greater the particular
wholeness of a holon, then the less fundamental it is, because fewer other
holons depend on it for their own existence. Primates, for example, are not
very fundamental holons, because neither atoms nor molecules nor cells
depend upon them. But by the same token, the less fundamental, the more
significant: the more significant that holon is for the universe, because
more of the universe is reflected or embraced in that particular wholeness
(more of the Kosmos is internal to it, as part of its own being). Primates
are very significant, relatively speaking, because they represent and
contain atoms and molecules and cells: they signify more of the Kosmos."
In other words an emotional level of conscious is lower, more fundamental
but less relevant than rational consciousness. And "Spirit" a term he pulls
out of nowhere but is supposed to be really, really important like:
"physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere-were one continuous and interrelated
manifestation of Spirit" Even if you buy this, it means that while Spirit
may be "fundamental" it is almost totally irrelevant.
Of course he claims that he is "really" shooting for this integral approach
where the left hand and right hand work together, yammana yammana yammana.
Right, the brain and heart should act in concert. We really don't need on
elaborate framework of lines and levels and quadrants to figure that out.
Then there is this, "The height of a holon and the depth of a holon refer to
the same thing, the (relative) number of levels of other holons internal to
it." The result of this convention is that he says depth in describing
higher levels in his holorchies. And it all just piles higher and deeper.
This confusion of depth and span and holoarchy is clearest perhaps in his
levels of physiosphere, biosphere and noosphere. This tracks mostly to
Pirsig's MoQ levels. Wilber wisely uses the noosphere to include all human
thought thus avoiding the spats we have here over the social and
intellectual levels. But clearly the evolutionary advances in the noosphere
are not improved meditation techniques. The noosphere is evolving in the
direction enhanced storage and access to information and knowledge. Mankind
is expanding its ability to communicate and to remember and these are not
coming about through mysticism. They result from rational analysis.
Then there is this on evolution, "But it is now almost universally
recognized by scientists that, although natural selection can account quite
well for "microevolution" (or variation within a given range of
possibilities), it can account not at all for macroevolution (or the
emergence of new ranges of possibility)." Huh? I hear this from intelligent
design types but not from real biologists.
Least anyone think I exaggerate there is this from a "Brief History of
Everything":
"Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes
perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a
half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a
wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever.
In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if
these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same
mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex,
and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate,
and have offspring with real functional wings."
This could be Philip Johnson or Michael Behe... pulzee.
So to review: to the extent that Wilber has anything to say about evolution
with regards to holons, he gets it backwards. When he talks about natural
selection he just gets it wrong.
I gotta go. But don't worry there is more...
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
